BARRY O WAS DISTRESSED AND SWORE, "NO JOKE, IT'S JUST ICE. IT'S NOT GOT ANY OF THE HAIRS I SHAVE FROM MY CHEST OR MY LEGS. I REALLY THINK IT'S FUNNY HOW I'VE BEEN PHOTOGRAPHED IN BASCIALLY A PAIR OF BOXERS AND NO ONE'S EVER GONE, 'EW, GROSS! HE SHAVES HIS LEGS!'"

More and more when the left clerical pool wants to go nuts in public, they head to KPFK's Connect the Dots with Lila Garrett and Ruth caught Jeff Cohen making a perfect idiot out of himself. Worse than that, he was outright lying. He couldn't take accountability, he couldn't even admit to his role in the 2008 election. Ava and I offered "Not So Fast Jeff Cohen (Ava and C.I.)" and then, as Ruth pointed out earlier this week, he shows up with a column. Ruth: "In fact, the whole thing reads like he is attempting to convince people Ava and C.I. were wrong. That makes his sad column even funnier."

And it does. Except for one point that I told Ruth I was planning to tackle in the year-in-review. He's still using the t-word. In his new column, he's still using it.

It's not funny, it's not cute, it's hateful. And not hate aimed at an individual who may have earned it (say Bully Boy Bush) but hate aimed at a group of people already scapegoated in this society and already denied equality. On top of all that, Jeff Cohen's going to insult gay men?

Just as the use of "tea b**gers" by 'progressives' like Jeffy Cohen today indicates there's no real acceptance of out-gays and lesbians in the 'progressive' circles, their embrace of sexism demonstrates there's no real place for women who value women on the left either.

He can't stop using it, he can't stop spewing hatred at groups of people, people who are not in power, people who do not decide whether or not this country goes to war, for example.

Why did the left clerical pool masquerading as leaders start 2009 with a chip on their shoulders when they should have been dancing in the street? Why were they instead snarling and attacking and, basically, scrawling "KILLJOY WAS HERE" on any blank space?

Because they're sick. They're not healthy and they shouldn't be even trying to lead a movement. They are sick. Past leaders lifted the people up, past leaders celebrated differences and demanded equality. Today's clerical pool sneers at the average person, isn't interested in equality and stigmatizes differences.

They don't need to assume leadership roles, they need to seek professional help. Even when they should have been dancing in the streets, they couldn't be happy. They're sick and they are active in their diseases and, as a result, they will pull everyone else down with them.

Friday, January 01, 2010

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O INTERRUPTED THESE REPORTERS NEW YEAR'S EVE FESTIVITIES AND SUMMED US TO THE WHITE HOUSE PACIFIC. ONCE THERE HE CONFRONTED US WITH A LOS ANGELES TIMES HEADLINE "WHITE HOUSE PLEDGES TO FIX INTELLIGENCE GAPS."

"WHY," BARRY O ASKED US, "ARE THEY TREATING ME LIKE A DUMB BLONDE!"

WE EXPLAINED TO THE CELEBRITY IN CHIEF THAT THE HEADLINE WASN'T IMPLYING HE WAS STUPID BUT INSTEAD REFERRING TO THE FAILURE TO PASS ALONG INTEL FROM AGENCY TO AGENCY.

"OH GOOD!" SIGHED BARRY O. "HEY WHILE YOU'RE HERE, CAN YOU HELP ME PUT IN A LIGHT BULB? I 'VE BEEN TRYING ALL NIGHT BUT I KEEP BREAKING THEM WITH THE HAMMER."

Peter Moore is alive. Alan McMenemy's status is unknown. The same as it was during yesterday's snapshot. May 29, 2007, the two men were kidnapped at the Ministry of Finance in Baghdad along with three other British citizens: Jason Crewswell, Jason Swindlehurst and Alec Maclachlan. The League of Righteous staged the kidnapping using official vehicles of the Baghdad security forces and using official uniforms of the Baghdad security forces. Moore was released yesterday, Alan McMenemy's status remains unknown and the other three men are dead.

July 29th, the families and loved ones of the five held a press conference. The bodies of the two Jasons had been turned over and there were rumors that Alan and Alec were dead as well.

Haley Williams: These reports are the worst possible news for us but we continue to hope that they cannot be true. But whatever Alec's condition, he no longer should remain in Iraq. We appeal to those holding him to please send him home to us. I speak to you as the mother of Alec's son. We are not the people holding your men but I do understand your feelings cause you're going through the same pain we are going through. If we had any influence over the release of your men, we would release them to you but we don't. Please send him home because as a family we can't cope with this anymore.

That is what Haley Williams stated. But, as noted in the July 29th snapshot, American audiences didn't get to hear all of Haley's statement. Most outlets ignored it and CNN cesnored it, stripping out this section: "We are not the people holding your men but I do understand your feelings cause you're going through the same pain we are going through. If we had any influence over the release of your men, we would release them to you but we don't." American audiences couldn't be told that the five British citizens were being used as barganining chips by the League of Righteousness. [See Deborah Haynes (Times of London link has text and also has video of the press conference) report for the families statements.]

Now that's really important. And it's important to what's happening right now and it's important to understanding how the whole thing played out. The British government never wanted publicity. They told the families -- they LIED to the families -- that going public would risk the lives of the five. They weren't trying to save the five. They never managed to, in fact. If Alan's alive and they save him, he'll be the first one they saved.

The British government was inept and it may have been criminally negligent. The kidnapping was high profile and the British government -- already being run out of parts of southern Iraq with their base destroyed and used as lumber by the Iraqi resistance -- had enough embarrassments on its hands. The government's request for a media blackout was never about the five men, never about saving them. It was always about saving Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from any further embarrassments. That's why Gordon Brown, current prime minister of England, could grand stand yesterday and speak of "Peter" yet only weeks before he refused to meet with Peter Moore's father.

They never wanted to talk about it to the media or to the families but when they think they have a photo op Brown and his administration are all over the press bragging and self-congratulating. For what? They didn't accomplish a damn thing and shouldn't be allowed to use Peter Moore as a shield to hide behind. Three British citizens are dead and on one knows Alan's state.

When the families held their press conference at the end of July, they did so over the objections of the British government. Why CNN elected to censor what was said is a question that everyone needs to be asking and part of the answer goes to the fact that few want to talk about how Peter Moore and three corpses were released. From the June 9th snapshot:

This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."The League of Righteous conveyed to the British government (which should be asked about those 'channels' of communication) that as long as their leader, his brother and other members of the League of Righteous were held in US-run prisons in Iraq, the five British hostages would remain hostages. That was their demand, that was the kidnapper's ransom. It's awfully silly for CNN to leave that out when the families of the kidnapped are making an appeal to the kidnappers. It explains to CNN viewers what the kidnappers want. But it got censored right out of the story at the request of the White House. CNN needs to explain that. They need to explain, first of all, why they're allowing the White House or any government body to determine what they broadcast when the First Amendment exists to make sure that doesn't happen. Then they need to explain specifically why they were told they couldn't air any reference to release of prisoners?

In ten years, you'll probably read the whys to both in a New York Times column because that's how CNN works. The British government never wanted press coverage of the kidnappings (until the poll challenged Gordon Brown could hide behind Peter Moore like he did yesterday) and the US government didn't want coverage after Barack Obama became president. The Bush White House never gave 'notes' to CNN on this story. Not when the kidnapping took place, not any time after. But CNN took notes from the Obama White House including from Barack himself. Anyone going to get honest about that?

For the British, it was an embarrassment. Under Bush, the following was conveyed to the British government (through various channels including the State Dept and the White House itself): US forces will patrol and look, special forces can be deployed for search missions, but NO Iraqi prisoners will be traded for the British hostages. That was the policy under Bush. And the weak and inept British government couldn't do a thing to save their own citizens. With Barack, who fancies himself President of the World and not President of the United States, an appeal was made.

The appeals started before Barack was sworn in and there's confusion as to the dead. It's thought, in retrospect, that when the talks began that only one was known/assumed dead (although two on Barack transition team state it may have been known/assumed that two were dead) but before the June release of prisoners, it was known that three were dead and a fourth was assumed. Before the US released the prisoners in June, it was known that only Peter Moore might be alive.

Peter Moore is a British citizen. It was the responsibility of the British government to work to secure his release. That can include asking other governments for help. In Barack's case? The prisoners were responsible for a raid on a US base and the deaths of 5 US service members. The Iraq War had not ended nor had the Afghansitan War. Meaning, you still have boots on the ground, you're still sending people over there. As President of the United States, his first duty was to the American people. That includes the five US service members who died and it includes their families and their friends. It also includes all of the men and women he is deploying to war zones.

Barack Obama's actions spit on the military. There's no way to pretty that up. The scheme/scam never should have been entered into. George W. Bush was, by no means, the brightest bulb in the lamp, but even he grasped the issues on this.

Barack Obama is commander of chief of the US military. The military's commander made 2009 about saying that the lives of US troops do not matter. The actions he took state that 1 British citizen is more important than 5 dead Americans. He was elected to be president of the United States, it was a job he wanted and it was a job he said he was up for. He's clearly failed throughout 2009 at his job. But how do you, as commander in chief, now ask any other service member to deploy?

How do you do it? You've just 1 British life trumps five American soldiers. How do you do it? How you earn their trust now? How do you tell him the crap about fight with honor when everyone knows that the US military held the ringleader of the attack on the US base in prison and you ordered his release?

In the US, the media's largely avoided the story. Despite this, when we speak to the military or military families about the Iraq War, since July, this topic has regularly been raised by them. This under-reported issue of the US release is known and discussed.

Barack Obama has falsely accused the left of spitting on soldiers after Vietnam. Barack has a habit of accusing others of what he does. It's called projection and this habit became obvious during the 2008 primary campaign. While he was making that statement this year, he had already engaged in spitting on the troops.

Peter Moore is alive. England's Foreign Secretrary David Miliband declared today, "Peter was set free by his captors this morning in Baghdad and delivered to the Iraqi authorities. He is now in the care of the British Embassy in Baghdad." December 19th Andy Bloxham (Telegraph of London) reported on the plea from Moore's family and the family of Alan McMenemy. Moore was kidnapped in Iraq along with four other British citizens with the League of Righteous claiming credit for that May 29, 2007 action in which they utilized official uniforms and official vehicles to kidnap Moore, Alec Maclachlan, Jason Crewswell, Alan McMenemy and Jason Swindelhurst from the Ministry of Finance in Baghdad. Today Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reminds, "The lead kidnapper, dressed as an Iraqi police major, shouted 'Where are the foreigners?' as he led a team of gunmen, also in uniform, into the Finance Ministry building in Baghdad." For a little background on the League of Righteous, from the June 9th snapshot:

This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."

Since the release, and the League of Righteous face time with Nouri and with Nouri's spokesperson, three of the British hostages were released, or rather, their bodies were. The three were Alec Maclachlan (body handed over in September), Jason Crewswell (body handed over in June) and Jason Swindelhurst (body handed over in June). The British government announced over the summer (with no explanation why) that they considered Alan McMenemy deceased. His family has continued to hope that he is alive. The British government had announced at the same time that they believed Peter Moore was alive.

ITN is calling Peter Moore's release "a late Christmas present" for his family. Last month Leicester Mercury reported the current prime minister of England, Gordon Brown, was refusing to meet with the father of Peter Moore. Today, with public support continuing to crater for Gordon Brown, he declared:

I am hugely relieved by the wonderful news that Peter has been freed, and will be reunited with his family as quickly as possible. They have faced a terrible ordeal and I know that the whole nation will share their joy that he is coming home. I pay tribute to all those who helped in the protracted effort to secure the release. At this moment of celebration, we also remember the families of British hostages who have been killed in Iraq and elsewhere. And we pledge to continue to do everything we can to bring British hostages back to their loved ones, including the remaining hostage of the group in Iraq, Alan McMenemy. I demanded that the hostage takers return him to us.

Diane Moy (New York Daily News) quotes Peter's father Graeme stating, "We are so relieved and we just want to get him home, back now to his family and friends. I'm breaking down, I'm just so overjoyed for the lad. It's been such a long haul." The most confusing part of the press reports is the family. Graeme Moore is Peter's father. His mother re-married and now has the last name of Sweeney. Some credit Pauline Sweeney as his mother and Frank Sweeney as his father. Pauline Sweeney is not his biological mother. Avril Sweeney is Peter Moore's biological mother. The Times of London and the Telegraph of London have long covered this story and their correspondents reporting today, such as Deborah Haynes, have been on the story since it began in 2007. So before anyone e-mails to say, for example, "Emma Alberici of Australia's ABC says 'Mr Moore's father and stepmother, Pauline and Frank Sweeney . . .'" -- Graeme Moore is Peter's biological father and Avril Sweeney is Peter's biological mother. Stephen Adams (Telegraph of London) sketches this out, "Mr Moore, 36, is the son of Graeme Moore, now 60, a delivery driver from Wigston, Leicestershire, and Avril Sweeney, 54, from Blackburn, Lancs. Mr Moore, 36, is the son of Graeme Moore, now 60, a delivery driver from Wigston, Leicestershire, and Avril Sweeney, 54, from Blackburn, Lancs. His parents split when he was six months old and soon divorced. His mother remarried but that relationship also ended and she moved out when he was 12. He chose to stay and live with his stepfather, Patrick Sweeney, and later Mr Sweeney's second wife, Pauline." It is a blended family and it's surprising that so many in the press don't grasp that since Gordon Brown was insisting he didn't have to meet with Graeme Moore for a variety of reasons. Call all family members but unless you're going into the walk through (as Stephen Adams did), Graeme Moore and Avril Sweeney are his legal parents. Frank Sweeny is his step-father. All are overjoyed and all deserve to be but when the prime minister has refused to meet with Graeme Moore mere weeks ago, you better believe this is a sore issue and you better take care to get the facts right. And if you're not getting what a source of pain this is, Graeme Moore told CNN (link has text and video) he learned the "news on the television" and that he called Miliband's claims of Brown's administration keeping the family updated a lie: "They don't talk to Peter's family. They never have."

Sam Jones (Guardian) notes other skepticism about Miliband's statement (disclosure I've known David Miliband for years). Miliband declared, "The British government does not make substantive concessions to hostage takers, anywhere and any place, and there was no such substantive concession in this case." And some are zooming in on "substantive concession" and saying it's worded that way to leave leg room or "cover [for] the deal predicted to lead to the imminent release of one of the leaders of Righteous League, a hardline Islamic group." Alberici observes, "T'he kidnappers from Asaib-Al-Haq, which translated means 'the league of righteousness", a Shia splinter group, are believed to have been told by the Iraqi Government that if they handed over Mr Moore and the body of Mr McMenemy, they would be given the right to run in the Iraqi elections next year." CNN adds, "Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said government officials were not involved in the talks that led to Moore's release, but said the decision to free him 'is part of the national reconciliation program' aimed at convincing Iraq's remaining armed factions to lay down their arms." Ned Parker and Janet Stobart (Los Angeles Times) report, "The U.S. military blamed the abduction and killing of five soldiers in Karbala in January 2007 on Asab al Haq and later captured its leaders, Qais and Laith Khazali. Laith was freed in June; Qais was transferred to the Iraqis today, said a spokeswoman from the British Foreign Office." John Leland and Jack Healy (New York Times) remind, "Earlier this year, Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, said the group might have targeted the five men because of the work Mr. Moore was doing to help combat theft and corruption in the Finance Ministry." Jim Muir (BBC News) also notes the questions being raised and offers, "Although the security situation has improved hugely over the past two years, Iraqis -- including schoolchildren -- continue to be kidnapped for ransom, a practice that was extremely widespread during the worst of the violence and lawlessness that prevailed during 2006-7. "

George Pitcher (Telegraph of London) observes, "There has been a protracted media and communications shut-down on the circumstances of these kidnaps. There may be very good intelligence reasons for that approach. But high-profile coverage over the years assisted with the release of hostages such as Alan Johnston and John McCarthy. The latest discreet strategy has yielded just one safe from five. I hope we learn more of the reasons for this approach soon. The families of those who were not as lucky as Mr Moore deserve no less." And he's correct. Silence on kidnappings is good for governments, not for individuals. (Along with governments, the New York Times regularly blacks out the kidnappings of their journalists.) The British government's FAILURES on kidnappings in Iraq go far beyond the four kidnapped with Moore and also include Margret Hassan. December 7th, the Iraq Inquiry explored the issue of kidnappings when questioning the British Ambassador to Iraq in 2004, Edward Chaplin.

Committee Member Lawrence Freedman: Part of this, perhaps particularly relevant for British opinion was the start of hostage taking. So we had in this period the Kenneth Bigley and Margaret Hassan cases. How aware were you of the danger to British nationals in Baghdad?

Edward Chaplin: Very aware. And, indeed, I think if you looked at the travel advice at the time, it would be "don't come anywhere near this place". They were terrible incidents. I mean, terrible obviously for the families, but terrible for the embassy in the sense that we were very helpless. Kidnapping was widespread at the time. This was often criminals rather than political. Of course, as we have seen elsewhere, often criminal gangs will carry out kidnappings of what they think are valuable people, valuable in the sense that they can be sold on to some political group. And I don't think we know even now exactly who was behind either kidnapping. I would have to refresh my memory. I mean, they were different in the sense that Ken Bigley, we didn't even now. He hadn't even registered with the embassy, we didn't know he was there. He was working with these two Americans for a Gulf company. The first thing we knew of his existence was when the news of the kidnap came through. Margaret Hassan was different. In fact, I had met her before when I was Ambassador in Jordan because she worked for CARE Australia, a very effective NGO, one of the few working inside Iraq before and after the invasion. So I admired the work that she was doing and the embassy kept in touch. So that was, if you like, an even greater blow. But just to explain -- I don't know if you want to go into detail about this, but I probably cannot because what happens when a kidnapping of a British citizen takes place is you have set up a really discrete team because this needs 24-hours-a-day attention. So that team was led my deputy and we had a lot of support particularly coming out from London, experience negotiators and so on. So after the initial phase, my job was really to keep it in the minds of Iraqi ministers who we thought would could help, the army and the police and so on, and do whatever else I could do to help.

Commitee Member Lawrence Freedman: What sort of response did you get from --

Edward Chaplin: Very positive and, of course, this was raised all the way to Allawi himself and it was raised by ministers, but they didn't have the capacity to help very much, I don't think. And, of course, they were dealing at any one time with lots of other kidnappings.

Committee Member Lawrence Freedman: We had no evidence oursevles of who was holding her?

Edward Chaplin: I think the assumption early on was it was a criminal gang of some sort, but we never got very far in pinning down exactly who was behind it and -- let alone having contacts that might lead to some progress.

Commitee Member Lawrence Freedman: And in the aftermath of her murder, we still seemed to have been in the dark as to what had happened and, indeed, where her body was.

Edward Chaplin: Some time later some of her clothes and possessions were found. We knew her husband as well, who stayed on in Baghdad. So we would see him from time to time. I don't know what the investigation -- continued investigation showed.

His comments were and are outrageous and indicative of how useless the British government made itself during kidnappings -- do-nothing, hope someone else does something or finds out something. David Brown (Times of London) reported that both of Margaret Hassan's sisters were present at the inquiry and hoped to hear some details about their sister. He quotes Deidre Fitzsimons explaining, "We have been waiting years for the chance to hear what happened to my sister but she was worth so little that she received just three minutes. We came to find out the truth even though we were skeptical, because we were told this would not be a cover-up. We have been betrayed. The authorities did not do one thing to help her when she was kidnapped and they are now doing nothing to find out why. As for Ken Bigley, it was almost as if he didn't matter at all [by Chaplin's testimony]. He was an innocent man who was murdered for no reason." Reuters offers a timeline for British citizens kidnapped in Iraq.

WARE: Three months after Roy Hallums disappeared in Baghdad in 2004, this proof of life video appeared.

ROY HALLUMS, KIDNAPPING SURVIVOR: My name is Roy Hallums, I'm an American national.

WARE: Hallums was an American contractor, building mess halls and providing food to the U.S. military, and his kidnappers were demanding $12 million for his release.

HALLUMS: You're just basically in shock. And you're moving and you're walking but it's almost like an out of body experience. You can see what's going on, but you don't believe it.

WARE: Before it was over, Hallums would be held nearly a full year by Iraqi insurgents -- 311 days, something I know a little about having been taken by Al Qaeda myself.

WARE (on camera): When I was grabbed by Al Qaeda and pulled from my car, I mean, they were just going to cut my head off. But it was like it was someone else. At that moment, it felt to me like it was happening to someone else even though I was completely or even hyper- aware of the moment.

HALLUMS: You're right. It's like it's almost third person, that I can sit there and tell the story. I can answer any question anybody has. It doesn't bother me, and what's for lunch, you know?

WARE (voice-over): This is Hallums at the end of his ordeal. He lost 40 pounds but says he never lost hope. For most of the time, his kidnappers kept him in a secret and cramped underground cell, the entrance sealed shut.

HALLUMS: You could hear them trawling this concrete over the door, and then they would shove a freezer over the top of that to hide where the door was. You're buried in there, and if they decide, well, it's just too dangerous to go back to the house and they never come back, then you're in your tomb.

WARE (on camera): Dead men tell no tales.

WARE (voice-over): Eight months after his proof of life video had appeared, U.S. special forces received a crucial tip on his whereabouts. Worried Hallums would be moved, they instantly launched a daylight rescue, four helicopters sweeping into a village south of Baghdad.

Starting with oil. James Kanter (New York Times) reports that Lukoil and Statoil have signed a joint-contract with the government out of Baghdad "to develop the vast West Qurna 2 oil field". Kanter identifies Lukoil as "of Russia" which is meaningless or are we all supposed to be stupid and ignorant of the 90s tag sale on Russia's public sector? The same sort of privatization that's happening in Iraq -- but slower than the US wanted. Lukoil brags about being "the second largest private oil Company worldwide". And of course, they're not a "Russia" private company. A private Russian company doesn't have US citizen Donald Evert Wallette Jr. on their board (he is also President of ConocoPhillips Russia/Caspian Region -- somewhere Averell Harriman is offering a lusty groan of despair). Statoil is also a public company (headquarters in Norway) and a multi-national company with a multi-national board (such as British citizen Roy Franklin). Hassan Hafidh (Wall St. Journal) reports, "Lukoil president Vagit Alekperov told a Russian television service this week that Lukoil aims to invest $4.5 billion in the West Qurna Phase 2 project in the next three to five years. He said he believed that the project would be profitable and would have a rate of return of 15%. Iraq awarded this year 10 oil fields contracts to international oil companies in two postwar licensing auctions. If these contracts were implemented, they would quadruple Iraq's crude oil production to nearly 11 million barrels a day, which could match or even exceeds that of the world's largest oil exporter, Saudi Arabia." Xinhua adds, "Lukoil owns 85 percent of the venture, while Statoil, 15 percent." But Kanter notes Statoil asserts they redid the contract so that their share "will eventually" increase to 18.75. Grab that three percent, Statoil!

Look for the above to start off another frenzy of misinformed (in fairness, some were not misinformed, they were LIARS) chatter that the US is suffering!!!! Such suffering!!! These are multi-national companies. These are publicly traded companies. Meanwhile? You could have been more than a name on the door on the 1400 suite in the air more than a credit card swimming pool in the backyard. That's Joni Mitchell's "The Arrangement" (first appears on her Ladies of the Canyon album). Only she says "33rd floor." I say 1400 suite because that's your clue to who's getting ready for the big score. The US oil company that's not only set its sites on oil fields -- in the north, in the KRG -- but has the White House pledge to push through the deal. The deal that seemed a no-go shortly after it was announced in the fall of 2007. That's what everyone's talking about (but no one's writiing about it for the public). Nouri's agreed to now go along with the agreement -- as part of the arrangment to push through the elections law. The KRG wants the money. The White House promised it would happen (this is part of Barack's ten minute personal phone call) and the KRG told the US based company (also a multinational) that the deal is 'done' . Nouri could still balk (though he said he wouldn't). But not only are multi-nationals signing but a US based multi-national is gearing up for, as they say on Wheel of Fortune, "Big money!" And since information on this deal is now available for pay (I didn't pay and I heard about the Monday after the Parliament passed the election law), we'll go ahead and note it here. Since it is available for pay and since a number of 'business' reporters now know about it, the only real question is why they aren't talking about. (Repeating: The deal could fall through. Anyone who ever trusts Nouri's word is an idiot. Equally true, Nouri could be out as prime minister which would mean new trading with the next prime minister. But right now, the KRG, the White House and the company on the 19th floor think it's a go. If you go sleuthing and identify 19th floor and sink your money in there and the deal falls through, that's on you. You shouldn't be trying to make blood money anyway.)

That's a KRG contract. Back to those wacky Baghdad contracts? Not so rock solid. Mohammed Abbas and Christian Wissner (Reuters) report this afternoon, "Ali al-Dabbagh said ministers had decided that proposed long-term service contracts for the oilfields, which were offered in two bidding rounds this year, needed "technical and legal" changes even after initial agreements for most of the fields had been signed." Not surprising and apparently not legal. Earlier this month on Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera) Jasim al-Azzawi discussed the issue of Iraqi oil with Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain Ibrahim Saleh al-Shahristani and the country's previous Oil Minister Issam al-Chalabi.

Jasim al-Azzawi: Issam, how dangerous is it for Iraq to sign these contracts and Memorandum of Understanding with no oil law in place.

Issam al-Chalabi: With all due respect, Dr. al-Shahristani seems to be moving on a shaky ground. I think he had fallen in his answers to your question, had fallen in the conflict between the Constitution and the existing laws. The Constitution says that, the two Articles about the oil and gas ought to be explained and there will be separate law to be issued. Until then, in a very clear, separate Article, it says that all existing oils will remain valid. Hence Law 97 of 1967 is valid as he mentioned and he ought to abide by it. That means, yes, the Minister of Oil is authorized provided they go and seek endorsement from the existing legislative body which is the Parliament for each case.

Jasim al-Azzawi: So far they haven't done that. Is that a reflection on the lack of oversight by Iraqi Parliament about this huge and overreaching contracts?

Issam al-Chalabi: No, the Oil & Gas Committee and many Parliamentarians have sought that and they have asked him, they have subpeoned him, that they should look into the matter. In fact, one particular member had gone to the federal court. And you asked about the dangers of these new contracts, I do say that it is very possible that in the future these contracts could very well be under questioning and somebody could question the legitimacy of these contracts and maybe they would be required to be amended or maybe anulled.

More excerpts from that broadcast can be found in the December 21st snapshot.Meanwhile Alsumaria TV reports that Iraq's Ministry of Oil is calling on OPEC [Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries] "to grant Iraqi its natural right in exporting crude oil" because "it owns huge oil reserves." Carol Sonenklar (HeatingOil) observes, "OPEC members have said they are content with oil prices in the range of $70–80 per barrel and maintained their production targets at their recent annual meeting. But Iraq might not adhere to OPEC's production quotas. The cash-poor country recently auctioned off some of its largest oil fields, with Russian and Chinese companies winning the most lucrative contracts. According to analysts, the auction could boost Iraqi oil production from 2.5 million barrels per day to as much as 12 million by 2016, which would quadruple its capacity and make it a rival to Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil producer. Such a drastic increase in oil production could threaten to undermine OPEC's influence on oil prices, which currently stand at an amount that the Saudi Arabian oil minister, Ali al-Naimi, believes keep producers and consumers happy."

Still with oil, maybe Iran invaded Iraq and seized an oil well maybe they didn't. It's still a mess of accusations and heated denials. Alsumaria TV reports today, "Iraqi Vice President Tarek Al Hashemi affirmed that Iran has transgressed the border and violated Iraq's sovereignty on 96 different occasions. Iraq's Parliamentary defense and security committee MP Abbas Al Bayati confirmed that Iranian troops have withdrawn from oil well no.4 in Al Fakka oil field." Iranian government officials have maintained no such violation of Iraq's territorial sovereignty took place and Iran's Press TV reported that Iran and Iraq are just fine, thank you very much. Iranian government officials have also stated that the whole story is an attempt by 'foreigners' to inflame tensions between Iran and Iraq. Certainly the two appear to still be prepping to enter into a national gas deal in the new year. Khayoon Saleh (Azzaman) reported Iraq and Iran are drawing close to an agreement on the importation of natural gas from Iran: "The statement said the delegation would seek striking a long-term contract to supply gas-driven power plants with fuel particularly in southern and central Iraq." Fatima Kamal (Azzaman) reports:Iraq has set up a committee which is to draw up a road map on how to develop oil fields the country shares with neighboring Iran, Oil Ministry Undersecretary Abdulkarim al-Aibi said. Aibi said the committee will soon travel to Tehran to meet with Iranian officials.The committee's formation comes following border tension between the countries over Iran army's occupation of a producing oil field inside Iraqi territory.Aibi made no comment on the Fakka oil field which Iran currently controls.Fakka is not a joint field as it is situated within Iraqi territory. Zawya notes, "Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mihman-Parast said on Tuesday that implementation of the 1975 accord signed by Iran and Iraq is the best way to remove any possible misunderstandings between the two neighboring states. Talking to reporters during his weekly press briefing, he added that the accord is an international one which can settle any possible border disputes between Iran and Iraq." Alsumaria TV also reports that Nouri al-Maliki is insisting that Iraq gives up no land to its neighbors but that he "denied that Al Fakka oil well crisis will affect oil and investment licenses rounds. Iranian violation should not have occurred because the oil well is suspended since 1979, Al Maliki said stressing the necessity to return back to the past situation."

Turning to the topic of Sahwa. Sahwa are also known as "Sons Of Iraq" and "Awakenings" and they are Sunnis the US military put on the (US tax payer) payroll (at an estimated $300 a month per Sahwa -- Sahwa leaders made more) in order to . . . Well let's drop back to April 2008 when the then-top US commander in Iraq David Petraeus and the then-US Abassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker were giving their joint-testimonies to the House and Senate. April 8, 2008 they started the day before the US Senate Armed Services Committee. From that day's snapshot: "The most hilarious moment was hearing Petraeus explain that it's tough in the school yard and America needs to fork over their lunch money in Iraq to avoid getting beat up. In his opening remarks, Petraues explained of the 'Awakening' Council (aka 'Sons of Iraq,' et al) that it was a good thing 'there are now over 91,000 Sons of Iraq -- Shia as well as Sunni -- under contract to help Coalition and Iraqi Forces protect their neighborhoods and secure infrastructure and roads. These volunteers have contributed significantly in various areas, and the savings in vehicles not lost because of reduced violence -- not to mention the priceless lives saved -- have far outweighed the cost of their monthly contracts.' Again, the US must fork over their lunch money, apparently, to avoid being beat up." Pride and Joy, as Marvin Gaye once sang. Nouri al-Maliki, stashing away billions in oil revenues at the time, was supposed to pay for all the Sahwa . . . in the fall of 2008. And? In November 2008 there was a bunch of hot air from the press (and no one ever retracted their 'reports') but the US was still paying. Feburary another round of panting but the US was still paying. As late as June, the US was still paying significant amounts. Arab media has been reporting that next month Nouri intends to stop payments. Over the weekend Chelsea J. Carter (AP) reported that the US military is expressing concerns over Nouri's plans for the Sahwa ("Awakenings" or "Sons Of Iraq") and that 212 of them have been killed in the last two years. Paul McLeary (Aviation Week) reports on a new study by the US Marine Corps, "Al-Anbar Awakeing: Iraqi Perspectives From Insurgency to Counterinsurgency in Iraq," on the Sahwa which "mkes some blunt assessments of the insurgnecy, including who caused it and what fixed it. According to the USMC report: 'In Iraq to a very large degree, we -- the U.S. military and civilians -- were the source of the insurgency. Honest men and women can argue the whys, what-ifs, and what-might-have-beens, but ultimately, it was mostly about unfulfilled promises and the heavy-handed military approach taken by some over the summer of 2003 that caused events to spiral out of control'." McLearly notes that the report can "be interpreted as the Corps' pushback against the celebrity of Army Gen. David Petraeus and the counter-insurgency field manuel he championed" and goes on to quote from the report, "No single personality was the key in Anbar, no shiny new field manual the reason why, and no 'surge' or single unit made it happen. It was a combination of many factors, not the least of which -- perhaps the most important -- was the consistent command philosophy that drove operations in Anbar from March 2004 forward." Also weighing in on the Sahwa is Jeff Huber (Antiwar):Petraeus' personal stenographer, former journalist Thomas E. Ricks, admits that Petraeus misled Congress and the public into thinking he was trying to end the war when he was in fact laying "the groundwork for a much more prolonged engagement in Iraq." Three years after the surge began, violence shows no signs of disappearing. Holiday attacks were especially brutal. Mosul Mayor Zuhair Muhsen al-Aaraji escaped an assassination attempt on Christmas Eve. (Mosul is the town Petraeus supposedly "tamed" during his first tour in Iraq. Within weeks after he left and the graft well ran dry, Mosul went up for grabs and has been a trouble spot ever since.) Also on Dec. 24, as the Shi'ite religious festival of Ashura approached, five attacks killed at least 19 people and wounded over 100. The Iraqi government was quick to blame al-Qaeda in Iraq, but I'll bet you a shiny new Ohio quarter that the Sunni-based Awakening movement that Petraeus armed and funded had more than a little something to do with the attacks.

For the second weekend in a row, James Cameron's Avatar was the number one film at the box office. Bob Strauss (San Jose Mercury News) reports it took an estimated $75 million in ticket sales (North America) over the weekend and BBC notes it's total box office take (in North America only) so far is $212 million "and could be on its way to grossing more than $1 b[illion] (625.6 million pounds) worldwide." Cameron's last film was Titanic which grossed more than $1.8 billion at the box office. I know James and he more than deserves a plug but we open with that because it is Iraq related. David Price is with Network of Concerned Anthropologists. Last week, he observed:

Fans of Avatar are understandably being moved by the story's romantic anthropological message favoring the rights of people to not have their culture weaponized against them by would be foreign conquerors, occupiers and betrayers. It is worth noting some of the obvious the parallels between these elements in this virtual film world, and those found in our world of real bullets and anthropologists in Iraq and Afghanistan.Since 2007, the occupying U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan have deployed Human Terrain Teams (HTT), complete with HTT "social scientists" using anthropological-ish methods and theories to ease the conquest and occupation of these lands. HTT has no avatared-humans; just supposed "social scientists" who embed with battalions working to reduce friction so that the military can get on with its mission without interference from local populations. For most anthropologists these HTT programs are an outrageous abuse of anthropology, and earlier this month a lengthy report by a commission of the American Anthropological Association (of which I was a member and report co-author) concluded that the Human Terrain program crossed all sorts of ethical, political and methodological lines, finding that:"when ethnographic investigation is determined by military missions, not subject to external review, where data collection occurs in the context of war, integrated into the goals of counterinsurgency, and in a potentially coercive environment -- all characteristic factors of the HTT concept and its application -- it can no longer be considered a legitimate professional exercise of anthropology." The American Anthropological Association's executive board found Human Terrain to be a "mistaken form of anthropology". But even with these harsh findings, the Obama administration's call for increased counterinsurgency will increase demands for such non-anthropological uses of ethnography for pacification.

Two years ago, the AAA condemned the HTS program, but this month's 72-page report goes into much greater detail about the potential for the military to misuse information that social scientists gather; some anthropologists involved in the report say it's already happening. David Price, a professor of anthropology at St. Martins University in Washington and one of the co-authors of the AAA report, says the army appears to be using the anthropological information to better target the enemy, which, if true, would be a gross violation of the anthropological code. One Human Terrain anthropologist told the Dallas Morning News that she wasn't worried if the information she provided was used to kill or capture an insurgent. "The reality is there are people out there who are looking for bad guys to kill," she said. "I'd rather they did not operate in a vacuum." Price and other critics see this as proof that the anthropologists don't have full control over the information they gather and that commanders can use it to kill. "The real fault with Human Terrain is that it doesn't even try to protect the people being studied," says Price. "I don't think it's accidental that [the Pentagon] didn't come up with ethical guidelines."

Anthropologically informed counterinsurgency efforts like the Human Terrain program are fundamentally flawed for several reasons. One measure of the extent that these programs come to understand and empathize with the culture and motivations of the people they study might be the occurrence of militarized ethnographers "going native" in ways parallel to the plot of Avatar. If Human Terrain Teams employed anthropologists who came to live with and freely interact with and empathize with occupied populations, I suppose you would eventually find some rogue anthropologists standing up to their masters in the field. But so far mostly what we find with the Human Terrain "social scientists" is a revolving cadre of well paid misfits with marginal training in the social sciences who do not understand or reject normative anthropological notions of research ethics, who rotate out and come home with misgivings about the program and what they accomplished.

Now you might think National Public Radio, so fond of being seeing erudite (they wish), would be all over the study from a leading organization of social scientists. You would be wrong. It's not that counter-insurgency isn't discussed NPR, it is, it's just that they only do so to promote it. (Ava and I wrote about that earlier this month.) Similarly, the foundation grant heavy (bloated?) Democracy Now! has never taken on counter-insurgency. It's refused to do so. We've been covering it repeatedly in this community while Goody's been all over psychologists and blah blah. But never alarmed by this. You need to grasp that.

There's a lot of money being made in and off counter-insurgency. And there are a lot of people who will not speak the truth. You need to grasp that it's a bastardization of a science and you need to grasp that when such a thing happens, when science is used to attack a native people and a society is silent, you have the next Nazi Germany. That's not hyperbole. This has been going on throughout the decade and who will call it out. Tom Hayden will do so as an aside approximately every 15 months or so. That's still more than any of his peers. Davy D of KPFA can't cover it because his hero Samantha Power is a counter-insurgency pusher. She blurbed the manual with praise. And what you're seeing is a left incapable of standing up to the war pushers, a left incapable of calling out the disgusting Sarah Sewall -- who may very well be the modern day Josef Mengele -- and a foundation backed attack on native people. You've got the idiot Thomas E. Ricks -- an expert on nothing -- who can't stop going ga-ga over counter-insurgency (make he's sure he's called out the War Crimes trials, in fact make sure he's tried). So much so that 'reporter' Thomas E. Ricks attacks the Vice President of the United States today. Dumb ass Thomas E. Ricks wants to take on Joe Biden and wants to start false rumors (no, Joe Biden has not fallen asleep in meetings -- Thomas E. Ricks is LYING) because Joe Biden won't sign on 100% to Tommy Ricks' beloved war crimes.

These aren't just 'fact-finding' missions (for the military), these are experiments carried out in the field. And these expermients can result in death. No social scientist should be in bed with the military. Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely stupid (Thomas E. Ricks) or completely unethical (Monty McFate). And we started covering it, honestly, because I know the liar Monty McFate and she was shooting off her mouth (with lies as always) to the idiot George Packer (who never learned to fact check). That's why it landed on our radar December 20, 2006. We have now been covering it for over three years. And where's our 'brave' 'independent' media?

Two years ago, David Price was part of a panel (with pro-counter-insurgency advocates Monty McFate, Col John Agoglia and Lt. Col. Edward Villacres -- a three-to-one imbalance) on The Diane Rehm Show (see the October 11, 2007 snapshot for a transcript of some of the exchanges). Search in vain for serious explorations of this issue. Now everyone can bore you to death demonizing Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann -- and no one's ever supposed to notice that the same sexism Barack unleashed among 'progressives' in 2008 continues to run wild and trample on equality -- but you can't deal with the things that really matter. If it were you or your child being 'studied' by the occupiers so that they could enslave you, it damn well would matter to you. But it happens 'over there' and as long as 'over there' doesn't show up on your TV screens, it appears everyone's not wanting to rock the boat or risk offending Harvard or, yes, the "the Kennedy School of Government". And while America's salivates over another round of "Bash the Bitch" (it's amazing how often that game is played), don't for one damn minute think anyone's being informed.

Amy Goodman won't call it out, she's too wrapped up in War Hawk Sammy Power. Remember? Remember her interview with Sammy? Best if you caught it on WBAI because WBAI was in fundraising mode and there was Amy raving over her while trying to get people to call in and 'support independent media.' Amy was raving that Samantha Power "'might be the next Secretary of State" and, growing more excited in her pitch, qualifiers fell away and you were left thinking not only would Power be Secretary of State, if Barack won the general election, but Samantha Power was right up there with Mother Teresa, maybe even ahead of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, to hear Amy rave on air. You can't take those moments back and those moments -- and Goodman's silence on counter-insurgency -- are very telling.

This refusal to question the counter-insurgency movement is a undemocratic refusal and it's completely against the norms of an open society. But that's what's taking place in the United State right now. Few will question it. Few will even bother to report on it. The findings of the American Anthropological Association are perfectly in keeping with the tenets of social science. There's nothing controversial about the study the organization issued. There's something very controversial about the group-think that refuses to question counter-insurgency. And when you grasp that Amy Goodman couldn't stop caterwauling about "we never see where the bombs drop" and yet refuses to devote even one damn segment in all these years to counter-insurgency, you realize how pathetic she and 'independent' media are. Now, in fairness, she will talk counter-insurgency . . . in past decades. But as she herself whined, if we can't talk about the war before it starts or while it's going on, when can we talk about it? After it's over!!!!! When it's too late!!! Amy Goodman needs her words tossed back in her face.